Quality improvement in medical education: current state and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: During the last decade, there has been a drive to improve the quality of patient care and prevent the occurrence of avoidable errors. This review describes current efforts to teach or engage trainees in patient safety and quality improvement (QI), summarises progress to date, as well as successes and challenges, and lists our recommendations for the next steps that will shape the future of patient safety and QI in medical education. CURRENT STATUS: Trainees encounter patient safety and QI through three main groups of activity. First are formal curricula that teach concepts or methods intended to facilitate trainees' participation in QI activities. These curricula increase learner knowledge and may improve clinical processes, but demonstrate limited capacity to modify learner behaviours. Second are educational activities that impart specific skills related to safety or quality which are considered to represent core doctor competencies (e.g. effective patient handover). These are frequently taught effectively, but without emphasis on the general safety or quality principles that inform the relevant skills. Third are real-life QI initiatives that involve trainees as active or passive participants. These innovative approaches expose trainees to safety and quality by integrating QI activities into trainees' day-to-day work. However, this integration can be challenging and can sometimes result in tension with broader educational goals. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: To prepare the next generation of doctors to make meaningful contributions to the quality mission, we propose the following call to action. Firstly, a major effort to build faculty capacity, especially among teachers of QI, should be instigated. Secondly, accreditation standards and assessment methods, both during training and at end-of-training certification examinations, should explicitly target these competencies. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must refocus our attention at all levels of training and instil fundamental, collaborative, open-minded behaviours so that future clinicians are primed to promote a culture of safer, higher-quality care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".